• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Summoners and Tamer's Issue

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd honestly just prefer Tamers not be used in battles and only exist for indexing if they are gonna cause so much trouble, especially seeing as I already forsee this turning into a mess. I don't particularly care much for many discussions right now so I'll see what others say.

Current Status: Neutral
 
We were over that before when we removed the rule. No, summoners are viable targets.

Heck, some characters specialize in targeting the summoner to take out the summo, while others get an actual nigh-invincible shield.

Why should we devalue their capabilities by giving summoners an invincible shield that they don't usually have? If a character has weaknesses it's their fault. We aren't going to ignore them just because in canon that is ofte done.

And I highlight ofte there, because even in the classical cases of Pokémon and Digimon, the summoners being attacked is something that does in fact happen at times. Outside of tournament matches, which ours very clearly aren't, the characters do actually not necessarily play nice.


And don't even compare that to "in character, but willing to kill". That is literally the "realistic deathmatch" assumption and for the very purpose of making the fight happen closest to what it would in reality. What you are trying is the exact opposite: Making it happen different then it would in reality by giving summoners an invincible shield.
 
I absolutely agreed. Gingka Hagane (Beyblade) is a perfect example of why I think this rule makes no sense. He's literally a 10-B with a Low 2-C toy, and he absolutely never fights because his toy makes all the fight for him. However, killing Gingka directly while ignoring Pegasus being considered a win-con is blaffing to me, simply because that's the equivalent of pitting a Low 2-C vs a haxless 10-B and saying the match is fair.
 
Disagree 100% with this for DT's reasons.

Not only that, is insanely unfair and unrealistic for a debate.

You have a target that can summon legions of people comparable to you, and (possibly) the only way for you to survive is to kill said target. Who wouldn't do that?

And is not unfair for the summoner on the inverse, because they can use said summons to protect himself if he doesn't have any other way to themselves.

That's a weakness of the character, and shouldn't be taken away.
 
I disagree with making it so that summoners can't be attacked as a standard but if the OP specifies summoners can't be attacked then the match should still be allowed to be added. I also think that if there is enough proof of a summoner tanking attacks from enemies and keeping up with his summons such as Red (Pokémon) then their profile should reflect that, it's not too far fetched that a summoner can keep up with their summons after a lot of training, especially in speed since some summoners need to command their summons around and it would literally break the entire lore if they didn't have comparable speed.
 
Yeah, I'm going to lead making (if they weren't already) summoners and tamers as vulnerable as their summoning or partner, no reason to give then an advantage where all realistic summoners can be targeted in battle.
 
As i said in that thread. I disagree, what's the point of giving them a random shield for no reason? Like if you don't want Pokemon trainers to fight just do "X pokemon vs Y character". There are profiles like Alakazam, a profile that just uses the pokemon, not the trainer too. If you don't want the trainers included do that.
 
>We were over that before when we removed the rule.

And im calling it out as being wrong. Doesn't matter what happened before.

>Heck, some characters specialize in targeting the summoner to take out the summon, while others get an actual nigh-invincible shield.

Then thats the former's problem if they have to rely on taking out blatant fodder in order to win their match to begin with. The latter is a different story since they have something that can actually constitute being fair game in a match.

>Why should we devalue their capabilities by giving summoners an invincible shield

Did you even read what I typed DontTalk? I literally pointed out that this isn't what im arguing here.

>If a character has weaknesses it's their fault. We aren't going to ignore them just because in canon that is often done.

This is far far more than just "a weakness" and you know it. Don't try and pass it off as that. This is literally a case of a character only being considered a said tier because of specific summonings BEING in that tier. So the things that are considered that tier should be the only things targetted by the opponent who is in said tier as well.

>And I highlight often there, because even in the classical cases of Pokémon and Digimon, the summoners being attacked is something that does in fact happen at times. Outside of tournament matches, which ours very clearly aren't, the characters do actually not necessarily play nice.

I can't comment on Digimon's case, but in Pokemons case, this is literally never the case unless its manga characters. And even then, just because some characters decide to throw cheap shots doesn't mean it becomes a standard on our site. Thats a in-story plot battle.

>And don't even compare that to "in character, but willing to kill". That is literally the "realistic deathmatch" assumption and for the very purpose of making the fight happen closest to what it would in reality.

And yet our standards completely disallow characters from using abilities that would actually save them if it's not in character to do so. And you completely missed the point of what I said. I said that the fact we put morals at higher priority than fighting for survival means "it being a death match" has little importance when it comes to making moves in a battle.

>What you are trying is the exact opposite: Making it happen different then it would in reality by giving summoners an invincible shield.

But that, again, isn't what im trying to do here. And i'd appreciate it if you stopped to actually read what I said DontTalk. My goal is to make summoners not be targetted, not give them invincible shields. I went over this in literally the 2nd paragraph of my post.
 
My issue is that people assume that getting rid of the summoner always gets rid of the summon. This is not always the case. In Pokemon, the Pokemon themselves can still act and contrary to popular belief, Pokemon can still think for themselves just fine. If they wanna keep fighting, they'll keep fighting.

Digimon is the same way, well, general Digimon Tamers. They die, their Digimon can still act and as such, the battle is still on. And this case rings true even more for Digimon as Digimon are far more independent as entities.
 
"Giving them a random shield"

Guys. THIS ISNT WHAT IM ARGUING HERE....can you literally stop and actually read what I said before replying here? I've had to point this out 3 times already.
 
Dragonmasterxyz said:
My issue is that people assume that getting rid of the summoner always gets rid of the summon. This is not always the case. In Pokemon, the Pokemon themselves can still act and contrary to popular believe, Pokemon can still think for themselves just fine. If they wanna keep fighting, they'll keep fighting.

Digimon is the same way, well, general Digimon Tamers. They die, their Digimon can still act and as such, the battle is still on. And this case rings true even more for Digimon as Digimon are far more independent as entities.
Click to expand...
So basically, we could say that summoners/tamers aren't immune to being attacked, but that their summons can still fight after they die?
 
Firephoenixearl said:
Like if you don't want Pokemon trainers to fight just do "X pokemon vs Y character". There are profiles like Alakazam, a profile that just uses the pokemon, not the trainer too. If you don't want the trainers included do that.
Click to expand...
Which isn't an argument to make here unless tamer/summoner vs battles should be nuked in general.
 
I am fine with summons still acting after but the trainer dying is still a factor.

If the summons literally need the summoner or get instructions from them, killing them is something to note.
 
This is much more than the summons "needing" the summoner though. The whole point of the vs match is that the summons are what are being targetted because they're the only thing that are considered in tier for the opponent to face. Not the summoner.

If the opponent has to literally rely on killing a fodder in order to win, then your admitting defeat by being unable to get passed the summons.
 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
This is much more than the summons "needing" the summoner though. The whole point of the vs match is that the summons are what are being targetted because they're the only thing that are considered in tier for the opponent to face. Not the summoner.
If the opponent has to literally rely on killing a fodder in order to win, then your admitting defeat by being unable to get passed the summons.
Click to expand...
No? Attacking the guy who is controlling a bunch of monsters is the logical assumption to deal with the problem and thats how you deal with most summoners in fiction. Its very common and shouldnt be disregarded. Its a wincon still

Not that it matters since the mons can still attack the guy
 
Whenever the summonings disappear or not the the summoner die or knocked out depends of the character, there's also other possibilities, such that the summoner have dominated their creatures and when this one dies the creatures still there, but aren't to follow the orders of their previous master.
 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
This is much more than the summons "needing" the summoner though. The whole point of the vs match is that the summons are what are being targetted because they're the only thing that are considered in tier for the opponent to face. Not the summoner.

If the opponent has to literally rely on killing a fodder in order to win, then your admitting defeat by being unable to get passed the summons.
Click to expand...
No Kukui, that isn't the point of the match. If you wanted to do only the summons then why use the summoner profiles. The point is a fight between two characters (summons included.) You can't just restrict a weakness just because you don't like it. (Let's be honest that is your only reason for this.)
 
That isn't common in fiction, usually whats common is the opponent attacking the summoner because the number of summons outnumbers the enemy. Not that they're too strong to deal with (which is what this case).

Anyway, it's also the logical conclusion that your admitting defeat by going after something far far weaker than you. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to do that to begin with.
 
Now, one thing I do suggest is that a summoner/tamer actually have the time to at least send out one of their summons (in a way they in character do so) before the fight starts.
 
Dragonmasterxyz said:
At that point it simply becomes a weakness of the summoner.
Click to expand...
This.

And I thought it was common sense that the summon can still fight even if the summoner dies?

If he loses to the Summon after the summoner dies, that would be an inconclusive outcome.
 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
Anyway, it's also the logical conclusion that your admitting defeat by going after something far far weaker than you. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to do that to begin with.
Click to expand...
Its called strategy to win the fight
 
00potato said:
No Kukui, that isn't the point of the match. If you wanted to do only the summons then why use the summoner profiles. The point is a fight between two characters (summons included.) You can't just restrict a weakness just because you don't like it. (Let's be honest that is your only reason for this.)
Click to expand...
It absolutely is the point of the match. Pitting a comparable character to another comparable character. And in the case of tamers, it's not the tamer whos being compared. It's what they tame that is.

Tamers not being able to fight isn't anymore a weakness than a 7-C being too weak to fight against a 5-A. It's not a weakness to begin with, it's just their whole method of actually fighting. And no, im not making this thread because of that but because this entire idea is 100% ridiculous. And im not the only one who shares this opinion.
 
To give an example, say Ikki Kurogane fought Jimmy KEN

Ikki pulls an Ikki and Kills JK. JK still has 3 Digimon who are more than capable of killing Ikki and they do so. We would either say JK wins or Inconclusive.
 
Oblivion Of The Endless said:
Its called strategy to win the fight
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. Your still admitting you cant beat their summons, the ones who are actually fighting. Running away from them and going after the weak link isn't a fight.
 
Kukui, If the tamer wasn't being compared, then why are you making a match with them?


It is nothing like a 7-C vs a 5-A. It is like two characters if comparable power, but one has a weak point (the tamer.) or is a glass cannon with something to balance it.
 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
Oblivion Of The Endless said:
Its called strategy to win the fight
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. Your still admitting you cant beat their summons, the ones who are actually fighting. Running away from them and going after the weak link isn't a fight.
Click to expand...
Ok? It doesnt count as a loss regardless, since its not a loss per SBA, and the guy is still not giving up of the fight since he is well...still fighting

 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
Anyway, it's also the logical conclusion that your admitting defeat by going after something far far weaker than you. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to do that to begin with.
Click to expand...
How is this a logical conclusion? Thats like saying that you have to destroy the enemy army to win a war, even if you could just nuke the political head quarter. I disagree with this thread too
 
Disagree. If you want just the summons fighting, then just make a match for the summon. If it's the summoner the one fighting, then he's always the most obvious target.

If they can't defend themselves, that's their weakness.
 
00potato said:
Kukui,
If the tamer wasn't being compared, then why are you making a match with them?


It is nothing like a 7-C vs a 5-A. It is like two characters if comparable power, but one has a weak point (the tamer.) or is a glass cannon with something to balance it.
Click to expand...
Because their creatures/summoners are what makes the tamer a certain tier, especially if the summons aren't like Pokemon & Digimon where they have their own pages. The tamer is who they are because of what they tame, it's their method of being able to fight.

This is an equivalant to SAO characters can be killed by destroying their VR headsets that run their avatars, yet we completely ignore that and use strictly their avatars only in a vs match because thats their method of battling.
 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
Then thats the former's problem if they have to rely on taking out blatant fodder in order to win their match to begin with. The latter is a different story since they have something that can actually constitute being fair game in a match.
Click to expand...
Do you really not see how making Ash in a summon battle harder to kill than Kyousuke on the grounds of being way easier to kill in reality is blatant favouritism?

Summoners often being glass canons is their fault and I'm against giving them invincible rule shields to act like Ash survives the planet being nuked into oblivion.

A weak character fighting a glass canon can be a fair fight. Lu-Niang Lan is a very accomplished fighter in a verse swarming with summoners that summon beings far above her paygrade. Her fighting a summoner is a viable fight. They can use their own fighting capabilities or summons to combat her.

>Why should we devalue their capabilities by giving summoners an invincible shield

Did you even read what I typed DontTalk? I literally pointed out that this isn't what im arguing here.

That you don't intend to do that doesn't mean that you are not doing it. You definitely devalue the capabilities of summoners that actually put thought into surviving combat.

This is far far more than just "a weakness" and you know it. Don't try and pass it off as that. This is literally a case of a character only being considered a said tier because of specific summonings BEING in that tier. So the things that are considered that tier should be the only things targetted by the opponent who is in said tier as well.

We have hundreds of glass canons on this page and this is no different. Heck, summoners are in a much better situation then most glass canons, since summoners can at least use their summons as shields.

If their authors didn't give them a way to defend themself it's entirely their problem.

I can't comment on Digimon's case, but in Pokemons case, this is literally never the case unless its manga characters. And even then, just because some characters decide to throw cheap shots doesn't mean it becomes a standard on our site. Thats a in-story plot battle.

Wrong. Remember what a shadow pokemon is? Literally designed to attack humans and does in fact also do so mid-battle.

No, this is not a battle by pokemon league rules. This is a battle to the death were neither character is bound to the opposites verses customs. Expecting characters from other verses to use worse strategies than they usually do, just so that some summoners don't have to step out of their comfort zone is favouritism.

And yet our standards completely disallow characters from using abilities that would actually save them if it's not in character to do so. And you completely missed the point of what I said. I said that the fact we put morals at higher priority than fighting for survival means "it being a death match" has little importance when it comes to making moves in a battle.

Yeah, we don't make characters use abilities that could save them sometimes, because they would realistically not do that.

And we don't put morals higher than fighting for survival, we put realism higher than fighting for survival. We make characters act the way they realistically do in their own verse. So, for example Ash will not start attacking humans. Not because he has morals, but because he usually doesn't attack humans.

Kyousuke on the other hand will beat people up. Not because he has no morals, but because that is his usual fighting strategy.

They do what they would usually do in a fight, whether that is with morals or not. A character is bloodlusted if he usually is and isn't if he isn't.

What you wish to do is to make the opponent not do what it usually does, because the usual opponents of the characters don't do that.

But that, again, isn't what im trying to do here. And i'd appreciate it if you stopped to actually read what I said DontTalk. My goal is to make summoners not be targetted, not give them invincible shields. I went over this in literally the 2nd paragraph of my post.

That is giving them an invincible shield. Or how else do you plan the summoners not dying by the shockwave of the fights any much higher tiered fighter produces?

Or is your intention that they actually still die from these things? In that case excuse me. Not invincible shield, but completely undetectable Tier 0 Stealth Mastery.
 
First Witch said:
How is this a logical conclusion? Thats like saying that you have to destroy the enemy army to win a war, even if you could just nuke the political head quarter. I disagree with this thread too
Click to expand...
Because your avoiding the opponents that are actually in tier with you and are relying on defeating something far far far weaker in order to have any possibility to win. And avoiding opponents, = running away, meaning its a loss for you. To be more specific, it's like if a 5-B is facing a 10-A with 5-B summons. The former's only chance to win is avoid all of the 5-Bs and go after the 10-A. How is that a legitimate win?

And false equivalancy to this. A war between 2 armies isn't the same thing as a single opponent taking on a summoners tamers. And even then, destroying their headquarters still doesnt ignore the fact that you have dozens-hundreds of enemies still before you. It's not a win.
 
But the VR headsets aren't on the character, they are in the real people a whole game away. (It still is a win con, just less likely.)

By that logic glass cannons should not exist. I don't see how your point means anything. The characters have weaknesses oh no, we must change the rules so my precious pokemanz don't lose.
 
Compare it to this:

A glass cannon with 10-B dura and a 5-A attack. He's fighting a plain 5-A character. Said 5-A one-shots him before he can use his 5-A attack.

This is basically the same. You're killing them to not let them use their attacks at a certain tier. You wouldn't say "The 5-A just killed the glass cannon before they could use what makes them 5-A in the first place, which means he's admitting defeat". Summoners are basically glass cannons, or rather, people made of glass carrying cannons around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Abstractly_a_Protagonist
Summoning another character in battle.
Replies
5
Views
682
ShionAH
ShionAH
Jozaysmith?
The Devil vs The Devil Hunter
Replies
3
Views
798
CodeCCLL
CodeCCLL
Dragonite007
Summoners Wars Discussion Thread
Replies
0
Views
614
Dragonite007
Dragonite007
Dragonite007
Summoners War Discussion Thread
Replies
37
Views
3K
Phsccarvalho
Phsccarvalho
Dragonite007
  • Locked
Pan'ghor shake the entire Earth
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
Back
Top